I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
*********
Well, you certainly set up your position. Will you actually state your position in part II???
I have been a fan of Rod Serling and the Twilight Zone, much of my life. I am not sure about your Twilight Zone reference. Does it refer to a specific episode and if so, which one?
Thank you.
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
I hat to tell you this, but your whole argument is flawed and if you go back and think about it, maybe you will figure that out.
First of all and most importantly, the Constitution was written in 1787 and there were reason why slavery was not outlawed then. Second, the 13th amendment was written in 1865, 78 years after the Constitution was written, so you can't blame the thinking of the 13th amendment on the framers of our Constitution.
I think before you try writing about this again, you do a little studying on the Federalist Papers. It will help you understand just what was going on at the time. Sure there are things that were not in the Constitution as written, but that is why we have an amendment process. They knew that they could not look into the future and see exactly what the needs were of a society 1 or 2 hundred years in the future. I think before you put the founding fathers down, you do a little more reading.
If you want to understand the true reason the Constitution is not working properly today, it is very simple. People today are not educated in the Constitution and that was done for a reason. Understanding that and more will tell you why your reasoning is flawed and what you need to do to make that right...............
What's your point? Which of the Founders stated that the Republic would survive until such time as the citizens (through their whoring representatives) could vote themselves ever greater largess from the Treasury?
Our Constitution, no matter how perfectly written, and its authors are not the problem. We don't have God here to administer his perfect justice, so we're stuck with humans in all their greatness, wisdom, foibles, dishonesty, vanities, greed and self-serving opportunism.
Pray for Jesus' return...
Brian Devon wrote:
*********
Well, you certainly set up your position. Will you actually state your position in part II???
I have been a fan of Rod Serling and the Twilight Zone, much of my life. I am not sure about your Twilight Zone reference. Does it refer to a specific episode and if so, which one?
Thank you.
Fan of the Twilight Zone,hell,you live your life there.
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
<><><><><><><>
I think there are a few octogenarians on this site. Though, I do not share your position entirely, you presented it very well. Thank you for an alternative read.
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
Eric
I will be 82 in 6 weeks and have lived through the same ups and downs of our country.
You made some good points but the main problem is abuse of power. Remember, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Term limitations and abolishment of lobbying would go a long way in solving the present situation.
Snoopy
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
For a structural engineer, you have not done your home work.
I would suggest that you take the Hillsdale College internet courses in the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence set out the intent of what they wanted to accomplish.
The Constitution itself, was the frame work to bring about that intention.
The Federalist Papers were the instruction Manuel for the Constitution.
Every citizen has an obligation to understand the instructions for running their country.
Every thing they did, was geared to keeping the political power as close to the people as humanly possible. Thereby, keeping the control of each citizen's life, next to the citizen.
The first attempt was the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution was the outcome of trying to correct the mistakes learned.
If you put a piss poor operator in charge of a very big crane, don't blame the crane when everything goes bad.
Before you start slandering the founding fathers and questioning their motives, you might do some research on the enemies of this country that have been assaulting it for decades.
If learning about the founding documents, takes up to much of your time, then at least learn about the enemies of this country that have been orchestrating it's downfall.
Yuri Bezmenov (former kgb) Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society - Complete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDgDear beautiful America, please, stop moving Forward
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2014/02/dear-beautiful-america-please-stop.html
Snoopy wrote:
Eric
I will be 82 in 6 weeks and have lived through the same ups and downs of our country.
You made some good points but the main problem is abuse of power. Remember, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Term limitations and abolishment of lobbying would go a long way in solving the present situation.
Snoopy
++++
To you both: I will be 80 in September. I understand what you are saying, but I think we have come a long way with our Constitution hammered out by people who had to come up with something workable. My generation was taught that the US Constitution was based on the Magna Carta.
As a woman, I understand the flaws in the Constitution, as do the black people who are the decendents of slaves. We weren't considered as "equal" enough to vote! I was born just 14 years after women demanded and received a vote. I have poll tax receipts from my grandparents who had to pay $2 to vote, and did do when $2 really bought something. My interest in politics and the workings of government was handed down to me by people who cared. I wonder what they would think of how we have mishandled what they cherished.
The main thing wrong with government these days is the influence of money in elections. Money talks and we all know that the love of said money is the root of all evil, truly.
EricWhoRU wrote:
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really should pay attention to that - Because of my age I can remember when things were a lot different in this country.
Yes, it is important to stand up against the BLM in Nevada, and against the government in general but what everyone seems to be missing is any honest consideration as to why and how and what it was wherein we allowed ourselves to be able to be manipulated into this mess.
I am a structural and mechanical engineer. That means I design things, all manner of things, buildings, bridges, mechanical manufacturing machines and about everything else that you could ever imagine. In order to design things to last, you must take the time to examine and build the underlying foundation.
The Leaning Tower of Pizza was not intended to lean. It leans because of a defective foundation. The trusted engineers who designed the foundation and the men who laid that foundation both erred seriously, causing the disastrous leaning.
When a serious unexpected problem develops, where the designers were trusted and expected to formulate a design which would guarantee a successful outcome, and what they designed resulted in the opposite of what the designers claimed they intended and what was the opposite of what those who trusted them expected, it gives cause to re-examine both the product and the true intention of the designers.
As the foundation of this country we have a Constitution, purportedly designed and implemented with the intention of creating a form of social organization that had never before ever existed among mankind; a society where the commoners themselves would be in charge, and where Freedom would, for the first time, be established among mankind. Where there would be no political classes, where everyone would be politically equal and free.
It is important to recognize and acknowledge that such a political organization had never before ever been implemented; and that there was no example for those men trusted with the design to follow, and, even more important, there was no previous example for the common folk to compare the design presented by the Founders against, to enable the common folk to determine the worthiness of the "new" design.
Was this actually a new design or sheep's wool?
A highly critically important factor that MUST be taken into consideration by us here in 2014, in our quest to determine why things that "everyone" seems to agree were designed to be so right, went so terribly wrong; is the fact that those men trusted with the new design, where such government would be under the control of the common folk, were the very men who had the most to loose by such a design.
It is not advisable to ask a tire salesman if he thinks you need new tires for your car, especially if you are blind and always hire someone else to drive you around, and that driver is no where around while you are talking to the new tire salesman. It is not a good idea to ask a plastic surgeon if he thinks he could improve the looks of your face. You would never consider asking a Monsanto scientist if he thinks GMO food is healthy. It is not a good idea to expect politicians who have been in charge for decades, for uncounted generations, to design and create a new form of government where they will no longer be in charge, especially when you have no idea yourself as to how such a government should be formulated; and the government you helped design ten years prior, was then failing terribly.
As a structural engineer, I have to examine the structure of the Constitution, the words and phrases actually written therein, to see if those written words are properly designed to establish and maintain the form of societal organization that the writers contended they had written into that document. I cannot allow myself to be impressed by writtings outside the Constitution, where the Framers set forth their intentions uning words and phrases that support their product, that has failed, dismally, to perform as advertised.
We rely on this Constitution to be the foundation of our Freedom and Liberty. If it were intentionally cagily written to surreptitiously enable the Aristocratic writers, who had been recently displaced from their previous governing positions in society by the ouster of King George III, to enable them (or their posterity), to at some time in the future, reestablish themselves or their posterity, as the rulers of we common folk, would we not be well advised to consider such possibility here in our time? So that we can make some much needed Freedom enabling modifications?
Why, when the Constitution was presented to the common folk in 1787, did, "Give me Liberty or give me death...", Patrick Henry say, when he read the Constitution, that he smelled a rat, and would thereafter have no more to do with it?
With the inclusion in the Declaration of Independence, of all the specifically enumerated complaints against King George III, as the justification for his ouster, how could it reasonably be believed that the "Founding Fathers," known to be among the most highly educated and intelligent men to have ever lived, could be so inept in their formulating of the Constitution, that they could not perceive that the common folk would expect and demand that certain protections be included in such document before the commoners would accept it?
As a side comment, I have significant evidence that the Declaration of Independence was actually written by Thomas Paine, NOT by Thomas Jefferson.
Back to my point, is it not then reasonable to consider that the reason the Constitution's Framers did not include any such protections in their original presentation was because they were concerned that if they wrote them in, that the Founders might include protections that would not occur to the commoners?
In the Constitution, as originally written, the Founders included considerable details in regard to what they did actually include, such as the limitations on state governments and the qualifications for citizens of the United States to serve in the House and Senate. and in the Presidency. So if the Founders were, for example, to have included the right to a trial by jury in the Constitution's body, then they would have been expected to explicitly define the authority of such juries, to include the authority and responsibility of the jury to first evaluate the justness of any law that an accused was charged with violating, in that section of the Constitution.
The ability and duty of juries to first judge the worthiness of the law is critical to the ability of the people to have and exercise their ultimate control over the government's nactment of unfavorable laws. The failure of the Founders to include this authority in the Sixth Amendment has enabled this critical ability to be taken from us by aristocratically minded judges.
On that point, prior to and during Lincoln's war of aggression on the South, before such judges and the government's public schools had been able to virtually destroy this all important People control of the government's legislators, during trials of those accused of violating the laws against the harboring of escaped slaves, juries in such cases back then almost always refused to enforce such laws by acquitting those so charged.
My purpose here though, is more fundamental, is to point out a very serious omission in the original Constitution, which exists until this day, this is the failure to include in the Constitution a declaration of the source and limitation of the Basic Fundamental Natural authority of the government. This protection and provision is implied in the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, however this implication is almost universally overlooked by almost everyone, except, I am convinced, myself.
As every reader of this writing is well aware, this government was created by mere men, NOT by God, by men. There are those who maintain that it was inspired by God, well, if that is true, His inspiration was seriously ignored!
It is well known and self evident that no one single individual man is Naturally imbued with authority to command the subservience of any other individual man (is that not part of what is implied in the 13th Amendment?). Therefore, as it is well established and acknowledged that no single individual man has any Naturally imbued authority to command the subservience of any other, then is it not likewise self evident and true, that it would be unreasonably possible for two or more of such impotent men to combine their non-authority to enable them to create an authority that none of them individually were imbued with?
That is, as it is self evident that zero plus zero will always equal zero, then how many zeros would it reasonably require to arrive at a sum greater than zero? If 0+0=0, then how can it be possible for 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+ jillions and jillions more zeros to = more than 0?
Failure to understand what is set forth in the preceding paragraph has been and is the cause of our loss of freedom. Or, to be more correct, we, mankind, have never ever enjoyed Freedom anywhere where an "organized"society has been established.
Part of the complaint against King George III, was that he was imposing taxation without representation. In an honest evaluation, where has there ever been taxation with representation? What is it that constitutes representation? "Representatives" are elected in this country based on "popular"vote. Popular according to who?
What about those who voted against the candidate who was elected, and what about those who perceived no candidate that shared their viewpoint and understanding of Freedom, such as myself?
When a legislature of elected representatives impose a tax on society, how are such impositions properly imposed on those who had no representative in the legislature? Does not the Thirteenth Amendment prohibit such police state tactics? What is it that constitutes involuntary servitude?
Is involuntary servitude eliminated by popular vote? Where is that provision set forth in the Thirteenth Amendment?
As an engineer, I cannot help examining the cause of the failure of our ability to exercise Freedom in this country, and from such examination determining, from the facts, that the Constitution is very seriously flawed. All those men and women who are clamoring for a return to the Constitution and for the restoration of the Republic, if you were all to be successful to the maximum extent to secure that which you would desire, and all the bad politicians were deported to Mars, and the Constitution was returned to, and the Republic restored, how long would it be before this society degenerated right back to where it is today?
We have 330 millions of humans in this country, all of whom, and I mean ALL, including myself, who have been subjected to government mind controlling indoctrination all of our lives. As I wrote above, I am 80 years old, How may of you who read this have ever considered what you read here, that I wrote, am able to write because I have lived it for 80 years?
There is very little if any of my mere opinion set forth in this writing, because,
I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone, where truth is abhorred!
I am 80 years old. You younger folks really shoul... (
show quote)
you got me beat in age but at your age...you're not gunna sit here and tell me that when you were young, freedom was like air (everywhere) whereas nowadays freedom now has a chokehold on it...and you blame the founding fathers for that?!?!? howabout putting the blame squarely where it belongs...progs (100 years worth) who gave up.
I'm 79 and see no gratification in blaming our Founders or the Constitution for the corruption in our government today. The Constitution is a solid base, the problem is what was built on top of that foundation that allowed this corruption. The blame for the ills of this country does not belong on the Founders, it belongs to "We the People" through apathy and pure laziness we have allow the government to overstep it's constitutional powers and intrude into our daily lives. The way I look at it is, our Founders did their best, we have not held up that tradition. The polls say that this congress has a 17% approval rate, just wait and after the elections at least 90% will be re-elected. That should tell you where the blame belongs and it's not with those that did their duty in the 1780s.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
